Most of us would likely agree that younger students, in particular, need to master some cognitive skills and that artificial intelligence could impair such learning. In other words, “AI should not do the student's thinking.”
But recent moves by some schools to ban use of generative AI in primary schools, whether temporary or permanently, are unlikely to stand the test of time, one might suggest.
Schools arguably have good reasons to restrict AI use to the extent that they try to measure unaided learning. Most teachers are likely to agree that the purpose of any assessment method is to determine what the student knows, not what language models know.
So cheating and a loss of foundational skills are key issues for schools. Tests and grades can lose their value as assessment tools if teachers cannot separate language model output from student proficiency.
On the other hand, the fact that educators don't yet know how to redesign education around AI might not be a robust reason for banning AI use. Is that the learner’s problem or the instructor’s problem?
School system / jurisdiction | Policy | What is actually restricted? | Rationale |
New York City Public Schools | 2026–27 moratorium | Student-facing generative AI banned in grades 2K–8; limited approved use in grades 9–12 | Developmental concerns, human interaction, avoiding outsourcing thinking; high schools receive AI literacy |
Fairfax County, VA | 2026 restrictions | Elementary students prohibited from generative AI; secondary students require specific authorization for specialized uses | "Human-centered" education, caution while formal policy is developed |
Seattle Public Schools | Restricted/teacher-directed | AI permitted when teacher authorizes it; unauthorized AI use treated as academic dishonesty | Emphasis on student thinking, transparency and responsible use |
Los Angeles Unified | Initially restricted, subsequently opened controlled access | In Dec. 2022 LAUSD temporarily restricted ChatGPT and other GenAI while developing safeguards; subsequently provided access for students 13+ | Shift from outright prohibition toward safeguarded use |
Fairfax County student devices | Technical blocking | General-purpose GenAI remains blocked on district-issued student devices even though personal-device use is governed by assignment rules | Security and control of school technology |
New South Wales, Australia | Assessment restrictions | 2026 reforms sharply restrict take-home HSC assessment because of AI concerns | Preserve authenticity of assessed work rather than attempting to ban AI everywhere |
England | No blanket student ban | Schools choose their own rules; government recommends supervised, safeguarded student use | AI literacy plus safeguards rather than prohibition |
Among the problems is that banning technology does not seem particularly effective, longer term.
Study | Technology | Finding | Implication for AI bans |
Allcott et al., NBER 2026 | U.S. school cellphone bans, >43,000 schools | Lockable pouches substantially reduced phone use, but average test-score effects were close to zero; effects on well-being evolved over several years | A ban can change behavior without necessarily producing the hoped-for educational gains |
Lichand et al., NBER 2026 | Cellphone ban in Rio de Janeiro schools | Phone use fell and test scores increased about 0.06 SD | Restrictions can work when the technology genuinely interferes with learning |
Figlio & Özek, NBER 2025 | Florida cellphone bans | Short-term suspensions increased; disciplinary effects dissipated after the first year | Enforcement can generate costs of its own |
Kessel et al., Sweden | Swedish secondary-school cellphone bans | Found no impact on student performance and could reject even small positive effects | Removing technology doesn't automatically improve learning |
Rahali, Kidron & Livingstone, 2024 | Rapid review of school smartphone bans | Meta-analysis found a statistically significant but modest overall effect (d=.162), larger for social well-being than academics | Benefits of bans are real but relatively limited |
OECD/PISA 2022 | School smartphone restrictions | In schools with bans, many students nevertheless reported using phones every day or several times a day | Formal prohibition does not equal behavioral prohibition |
EdWeek Research Center, 2024 | School cellphone enforcement | Students reported using smartwatches, alternate devices and other methods to circumvent restrictions | Students adapt around technological restrictions |
SMART Schools study | UK school phone policies | Restrictive policies reduced phone/social-media use during school, but not overall weekday/weekend use or mental well-being | Restrictions often move behavior rather than eliminate it |
Perhaps other bans, such as forbidding student access to smartphones during the school day can work, in a controlled setting, for some types of technology. But it remains far from clear that long-term impact is positive.
Perhaps bans are good at reducing exposure to a technology inside a controlled environment. They are much less reliable at producing large improvements in educational outcomes.
Also, “cheating” might not be a technological problem, but a human problem. Students cheated before ChatGPT. Calculators, phones, Google, Wikipedia, friends, answer sites and copied homework provide examples.
AI changes the cost and scale of cheating, but banning one particular tool doesn't necessarily eliminate the underlying incentives.
The strongest argument for bans, though, is developmental sequencing. We believe students need to learn fundamentals first. That is why art or music students are schooled in classical fundamentals before they start exploring their own interpretations.
For similar reasons, instructors of mathematics or writing are likely to continue emphasizing mastery of foundational concepts and forms.
But practical bans will be difficult when AI is built into virtually all major technology platforms people use.
The issue might be assessment methods more than “learning” methods, though. Probably everyone would agree that students need cognitive mastery of forms before outsourcing work to AI. The relevant issue might be that teachers do not yet have a good way of assessing such mastery when AI tools are available.
It is one matter to “redesign assessment”methods. But some methods are sort of “brute force,” such as shifting to in-classroom writing rather than “take home” work.
Redesigning assessment for online learning scenarios will be quite a bit harder, one would think.
Policy | Short-term effectiveness | Long-term viability |
Block ChatGPT on school Wi-Fi/devices | High | Low |
Ban AI for particular assignments | High | High |
Ban AI for young children | Potentially high | Quite plausible |
Ban AI for all K–12 students | Moderate | Low |
AI detectors as enforcement | Low–moderate | Very low |
Require disclosure of AI use | Moderate | High |
Teach AI literacy | Moderate initially | Very high |
Redesign assessment around demonstrated competence | High | Very high |
Allow AI but require students to explain/defend its output | Moderate–high | Very high |
